Michael Lavorgna strikes back.......

[Bill Brown]

ML is of course responsible for what he writes and must suffer whatever consequences are deemed appropriate by the owner of the site.

I do think, though, that there is a misunderstanding (likely insurmountable, based on the personalities of his antagonists) of why he would become angry enough to message what he did (not what I would have chosen, btw- if someone insulted me that way I would be more likely to chuckle than react with righteous indignation or feel offended).

In the last few days I have read:

• Comparisons of audiophiles to flat earthers, antivaxxers, adherents to homeopathy, memory water advocates, etc.

• “I am not concerned about hurting their feelings”

• “There’s a benefit to being on the right side of the debate.  You have a higher ground that you get to speak from.”

• People labeled delusional- “If you are ML and you are delusional about Ethernet..”

• “One consequence of saying stupid shit is often, quite likely, ridicule.”

• “And you are 100% correct that their (sic) should be consequences for a professional audio reviewer that just blatantly lies”

• “You, too, would be frustrated if fake nostrums were shilled in your (more important) field”

• “welcome to generation wuss”

• “snowflakes roasting on an open fire”

• “I called him a hack and a coward a while ago but only because I truly believe those things and I can back it up.  Now I have additional proof of his cowardice.”

• “narcissists collect psychophants”

Certainly, many of these statements came after his message, but the attitudes behind them permeated all prior interactions with him.

There are both personal and professional issues, involved.  The latter is incompletely understood, I feel.  It is consistently seen, for example, when JA feels compelled to repeatedly respond to accusations of shilling, pay for play, pandering to advertisers, etc. (typically on AA).  People seem very willing to (anonymously, of course) impugn someone’s professional integrity without the expectation of consequences.

If someone came to my place of business and called me a liar, shill, delusional, a hack (I guess in my case a “quack”), and a coward they had better be prepared to deal with the consequences, especially the last, as they would soon realize that it wasn’t the case (and they wouldn’t be able to rely on anonymity).

There was a time when we were men (sorry Teresa).  And I agree with the “wuss generation” designation, though I think it was misapplied in this case, and prefer Eastwood’s name in print of “pussy generation” (sorry again, Teresa).

In older (perhaps more noble days), the above would have been dual-worthy.  These days we (that frequent these sites, anyway) are perhaps more enlightened and don’t shoot at each other, but the underlying instincts haven’t fully left us.

I should note that I agree with much of what “Neuroscience” has been writing, especially my complete lack of desire to go to medical fora and ridicule those who disagree with me (what’s the point?!).

I considered not frequenting CA anymore (not because of ML's situation), or perhaps just following the more practical threads, but admit it is hard to look away from a car accident.  I will have to figure out how to be more disciplined in this regard.

I will go back to my typical lurking.

Bill

[Bill Brown]

I believe "psychophant" was your spelling, I failed to place "(sic)" as I did with the misuse of "their."

 

I have inconsistent internet, hence wrote my note separately (can't stream music, obviously).  I also only post (anywhere) every few years, so not super-technically efficient in that regard.

 

Not sure what a sock puppet is or how I would become one.  I always register with my real name (well, it is actually William, but I go by Bill ever since I asked my family not to call me "Billy").

 

The "place of business" comment is interesting (and anticipated).  It isn't clear to me, but I suspect AS is ML's place of business, and this is CC's place of business.  And if they are on the internet....well, I don't know, isn't fully clear in my mind.

 

I never ascribed any nobility to ML, I referred to a different era; it seems that should be obvious.

 

I am from Texas, and enjoy some westerns, but I wouldn't describe myself as a fan.

 

I also don't know any karate, though, in my experience it hasn't really been necessary.

 

I had lunch with a psychiatrist colleague (I am not a psychiatrist) and discussed my rare foray out from lurker status.  She commented:

 

"Wonder if they will ‘Get it’?  (Self-involved, socially isolated, and developmentally stunted respondents). 

I continue to be amazed at the lack of self-knowledge and narcissism that is evident in internet posts and comments."

 

Maybe applies to a lot of us.  I know this morning when Audirvana shuffled to Coltrane's "Song Of The Underground Railroad" all of this seemed a bit insignificant.

 

Bill

 

[Bill Brown]

"Maybe she was treating you"

 

Ha!  Good one.  Maybe so!

 

I have wondered, sometimes, whether I am in some kind of "Shutter Island" scenario.  Will have to ask if I am actually the patient (I am open to considering the possibilities).

 

BTW, she is treating the sickest of the sick, what would have been referred to in the olden days as the "criminally insane."  Not a whole lot of navel-gazing going on....

 

Bill

[Bill Brown]

Well, I can take implied fastidiousness and obsession from Mr Cogley (“had to have taken quite a bit of time to assemble that list”- or maybe I have an eidetic memory), being suspected of being a “sock puppet,” twisting my comments re. nobility, Plissken’s whatever it is, teased as being a fan of westerns and an expert in karate (when honestly, if you did call me a coward I would actually kick your ass if given the opportunity to meet face to face), having my friend called a “high priestess” (somewhat funny, actually, and my new nickname for her), “worrying” (about what?), needing to “learn more,” being suspected of being a psychiatric patient (also fairly amusing), but as a matter of principle I have to draw the line at the impugning of the ethics of a respected colleague.

 

She made a casual, general, somewhat interesting (to me) observation while going for a walk……I should have realized that folks were incapable of processing this and left it out- not really germane to and perhaps detracting from my points, anyway.  My mistake.  She is kind, caring, generous, and patient-centered; any of you would be lucky to have her as a physician except that you would (after she actually diagnosed you) find yourselves in a unit that suddenly and quite shockingly reminded you of “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest,” where all of this puffery over ethernet cables and electrical boxes would suddenly seem VERY unimportant.  Believe me.  With which one of you does she have an established doctor-patient relationship?

 

“Speed Racer’s” post and Chris’ addendum (now I see a reference to Abu Ghraib?!) unfortunately provide a classic example of my main initial point.  Despite our failings as a whole (I will only get disappointed if I pause and ponder the state of modern medicine), many of us still take our professional ethics seriously, and this is a line we do not cross casually, nor suffer those who do.

 

When one of the EE’s provide commentary on the electrical parameters of a piece of equipment/circuit are they “diagnosing,” or are they simply making routine comments based on their field of study?

 

Thank you, Teresa, for your upvote suggesting I didn’t offend.  I really like your approach and wouldn’t want that to be the case.

 

P.S. While my memory is very, very good, it isn’t eidetic.

[Bill Brown]

"skikirkwood," I read the threads/replies you linked.  It is so strange how people can perceive things differently.  I don't see any "flames," nor do I see him being "downright nasty."

 

He seemed supportive of you finding music from whatever source you would like, including vinyl, including a smiley-face.

 

Once he clarified the nature of the article-type, it seems you would have been satisfied.  I suspect if you had offered your XTC knowledge of different masterings in a non-confrontational manner it would have been hailed as a welcome contribution.

 

Unfortunately, I am afraid you committed the same (I call it a) mistake that I have seen over and over again- that is, the belief that you can question someone's professional integrity and not expect a response (the quote you put in above).  It must be a blind spot to many, or I must be crazy (no need to affirm, Cogley  ).

 

It continues to mystify me.

 

And this is NOT to say that I would even like ML or become a friend; simply that any man has a right to defend his integrity from attack.  Don't you see that your quote demeaned his life's work?  And you want him to publish it?

 

Sincerely,

 

"Cogley's ML sock-puppet," "weaponizer of psychology," "ethically-challenged," "professionally dubious," "machismo," "lover of old westerns," "shill," "expert on ducks and imposters," "Janitor in Chief," "expert in Karate," sycophant

[Bill Brown]

"Ralf11," that post is simply silly.  It doesn't have anything to do with self-esteem; it has everything to do with honor, class, and realizing that some things, if said in person, would qualify to be challenged, perhaps with a punch in the face.  That could certainly challenge your "self-esteem."  I don't suspect they were writing about ML or me in that article.  Your lack of awareness in that regard is striking, but not unexpected (at all).

 

Perhaps the Urban Dictionary is correct.

[Bill Brown]

Advocating violence?  No, pointing out reality.  Do you understand the definition of "advocate" or are you simply twisting reality to suit your purpose?  Or do you not understand what I said?  I advocate for not criticizing a man's honor as haphazardly as you anonymous internet posters like.  I suggested that doing that, especially in times past, risks confrontation.

 

Your definition of "flame" must be different than mine, for I saw none in his, but in yours I read "hack, shill, no class, no honor, deceiving," etc.

 

And then to go the sock puppet route.  Lord help us.  Cogley beat you to it; see the signature.

 

Pardon me if I am not impressed by your professed bravery posting anonymously behind your keyboard.  Might be fun to see anyway- see what you are really made of; I suspect not much.

[Bill Brown]

40 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

so, you think it is clear that the blogger of Audioscream has plenty of self-esteem??

 

if so, do have some other reason to explain his behavior?

I am afraid that I don't understand what you are asking in the first sentence.

 

As to the second, I think I have made it quite clear what I think the reason is behind his behavior.

[Bill Brown]

11 minutes ago, skikirkwood said:

The dude definitely thinks violence is an appropriate response to someone's words.  Probably lives in Alabama and is a big Trump supporter, with an NRA decal on the windshield of his car.

 

More bold, unsubstantiated aspersions proudly declaring your ignorance.  Oy.

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, skikirkwood said:

 

I agree.  I do think it's highly likely he is a friend of ML.  Why else would someone try to defend the honor of ML on a forum like this? 

 

I am not a friend of ML. I am not sure I would even like him- that’s ok, he might not like me either. Even if I decided he was an ass, unless I had clear evidence of professional misbehavior (not the nonsense you all profess that is a product of bizarre thinking that I can’t quite figure out) I would NEVER say the things said here so casually. 

 

It is fairly clear based on my postings my name, profession, and the state In which I live. 

 

I am am not trying to defend ML’s honor.  I simply am worn out by the pack behavior of anonymous know-it-alls who behave poorly rather than discussing ideas, who seem too ready to ascribe nefarious motives, who shout down those who don’t immediately jump on all the “anti-“ bandwagons, and, I think dishonorably, accuse people of being crooked in their profession.  I think it is pitiful.

[Bill Brown]

“Testosterone fueled,” “saint,” “audio messiah.”  Perhaps the latter is why he has so many “sychophants.”

 

I can always count on you for a grammatically correct, vocabulary-enhanced rapier of a post that stirs the pot and antagonizes with semi-veiled insults. 

 

You up should probably get back to monitoring all of the MQA threads to make sure no one strays from the party line. 

 

“Has been noted.”  I hope so, otherwise your reading comprehension would be suspect. And?

 

[Bill Brown]

Nah; I see it happening to lots of people on several fora. Not sure why I chose (and continue to choose) to emerge from lurker status in this particular example.  

[Bill Brown]

Maybe I should have used the word “disappointed.”  But it is “wearing.”

[Bill Brown]

Sure; that must be it. 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Samuel T Cogley said:

I'm just flattered that so many have spent so much time researching my avatar. 

 

Unfortunately I am guilty of cultural illiteracy!  I had no idea what the name referred to!